Martin Kreiswirth defines narratology as “Something happened; or, better, someone telling someone else that something happened.”[1] In the simplest terms, Kreiswirth's definition does a fine job at explaining narratology. However, it does little to better one's understanding into the complexities of the concept. A narrative is more than a sender reporting events to a willing receiver. The term narrative refers to a useful weapon for dissemination of information from the perspective of the author. It is a chance for individual thought to be voiced and heard.[2] Therefore, a narrative is not just an interesting story but rather a display of an author's emotional state with an underlying meaning to promote certain action.[3] Being an active participant is a crucial role in conceptualizing narratology. Not only is the narrator creating an active audience but s/he is an active agent by formulating his/her thoughts through a public medium.[4] Thus, it is important to note that a narrative is a story but not all stories are narratives if these standards cannot be met.
[1] Kreiswirth, Martin: Merely Telling Stories? Narrative and Knowledge in the Human Sciences. Poestics Today 21:2 (Summer 2000), p. 294.
[2]Marie-Laure: Toward a Definition of Narrative, in: Herman, David (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 29.
[3] Marie-Laure: Toward a Definition of Narrative, in: Herman, David (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 29.
[4]Abbott, H. Porter: The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (Cambridge Introductions to Literature). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.16.
The first thing that stuck out to me in this response is how you were able to effectively expand on Kreiswirth's simple approach by sprinkling in ideas from other definitions of narrative. I also really liked the way you describe the importance of the role of the audience in narratives. The perception of the audience does undoubtedly contribute to the final product of a narrative in one way or another. This is an aspect of narratology that definitely deserves more attention because it has a great impact on how the story is viewed as a whole and in some cases re-told.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comment to my definition of narratology. I find human interpretation is a key role in the dissemination of narrative. It brings out the point that although a narrative might be written from one perspective, the narratee might have a different background that is crucial to their understanding. It may be drastically dissimilar to what the author intended the audience to pull out from the information displayed. This becomes even more apparent with the introduction of the cyber enabling a global reaction. Basically, the definition was trying to show how narratology is effected by human reaction. It becomes active because people are active agents. Narratology is a ever changing concept just as people are perpetually altering their world view based on the direct/indirect events that shape their lives.
ReplyDeleteI also really appreciated your use of Kreiswirth's simple definition. I also used this when defining narrative, and I think it's important to make sure it is clear that narrative is something simple and broad that we are all familiar with. However I also like how you extended the definition to include human reaction.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment. Coming from an anthropological background the unique human ability to interpret abstract concepts has been a fascination of mine. Each Professor of every course I've taken in my major has argued what specifically shapes this unique quality from their varying sub-fields of study. From a linguistic anthropological perspective, communication creates human uniqueness. From a Sociocultural point of view culture is seen as the dominating factor. An archaeologist might see resourcefulness of tool use to modern technological advances as what makes human's special. (Unfortunately my knowledge of biological anthropology is limited so I will not speak on behalf of that sub-field.) From my perspective, these seemingly different conceptions of what it means to be human do not need to be mutually exclusive. Underlying all these ideas is an overall quality of being able to think in an abstract manner. For example, human communication allows one to think about the intangible, culture is uniquely human and shapes how people view themselves and the world they live in, and tools which start as raw materials are combined to create technology that is used for more than subsistence practices. Even more amazing is how unique one individual is from another. That is where the notion of human reaction plays a key role. No one thinks exactly the same so it is crucial for a narrator to remember the audience's reception of the information. The specific words chosen by the narrator can be as much a weapon to aid for or hinder against the intended goal based upon interpretation.
ReplyDelete